Lions Tour

[Capt Pat]

Well that didn't go according to plan. Colby was the difference maker. The Lions didn't have anyone like him in the matchday squad. Ithink the Lions should regret not having Rees Zammit in there, he could have made a difference.

[Hoof Hearted]

They have a lot of game changers in that squad
Young Smith flew out after the premiership final ( in which he starred )
NO WAY was he getting included with Gatlands game plan
Lions best player was Russell but even he kept kicking away needless ball cause that was he was told to do
If it wasn't for him coming on and playing off the cuff the game would have been long over

Why do coaches set up not to lose instead of trying to win ?

[snoopdog]

4 nations couldnt beat 1

[RadioGAAGAA]

An easy solution would be to reduce the number of Subs.

Even easier solution would be total matchday squad weight limit.

Wouldn't be very hard for the 4 officials to have a couple of sets of weighing scales and tot up the 23 on each side.

Bust the limit and you have to drop as many of your subs off your squad as necessary to get back under the limit.

[dublin7]

Well that didn't go according to plan. Colby was the difference maker. The Lions didn't have anyone like him in the matchday squad. Ithink the Lions should regret not having Rees Zammit in there, he could have made a difference.

That's rubbish. God himself could have been playing on the wing for South Africa and it would have made no difference. The winning try from South Africa was a freak play based on the bounce of a ball and pure luck

South Africa with an incredibly limited kick & chase game plan won due to poor officiating and the Lions not taking their chances in the first half.

Rules need to be changed to discourage such negative tactics. South Africa were incredibly negative/cynical over the whole series and were at their most dangerous when they kicked away possession to the Lions.

Questions need to be asked about the rules when limited teams like South Africa look more threatening without the ball than with it and as a a tactic give the ball to the opposition rather than look to create anything through their own play

[6th sam]

Well that didn't go according to plan. Colby was the difference maker. The Lions didn't have anyone like him in the matchday squad. Ithink the Lions should regret not having Rees Zammit in there, he could have made a difference.

That's rubbish. God himself could have been playing on the wing for South Africa and it would have made no difference. The winning try from South Africa was a freak play based on the bounce of a ball and pure luck

South Africa with an incredibly limited kick & chase game plan won due to poor officiating and the Lions not taking their chances in the first half.

Rules need to be changed to discourage such negative tactics. South Africa were incredibly negative/cynical over the whole series and were at their most dangerous when they kicked away possession to the Lions.

Questions need to be asked about the rules when limited teams like South Africa look more threatening without the ball than with it and as a a tactic give the ball to the opposition rather than look to create anything through their own play

Rugby has massive issues, cynicism , endangering opponents, financial concerns, reducing skill and Flair. I don't see a way out of it

[dublin7]

Well that didn't go according to plan. Colby was the difference maker. The Lions didn't have anyone like him in the matchday squad. Ithink the Lions should regret not having Rees Zammit in there, he could have made a difference.

That's rubbish. God himself could have been playing on the wing for South Africa and it would have made no difference. The winning try from South Africa was a freak play based on the bounce of a ball and pure luck

South Africa with an incredibly limited kick & chase game plan won due to poor officiating and the Lions not taking their chances in the first half.

Rules need to be changed to discourage such negative tactics. South Africa were incredibly negative/cynical over the whole series and were at their most dangerous when they kicked away possession to the Lions.

Questions need to be asked about the rules when limited teams like South Africa look more threatening without the ball than with it and as a a tactic give the ball to the opposition rather than look to create anything through their own play

Rugby has massive issues, cynicism , endangering opponents, financial concerns, reducing skill and Flair. I don't see a way out of it

Due to Covid every sport has financial issues, but in terms of player safety rugby is doing more than most sports to deal with issues like concussions and head injuries. Dangerous/high tackles are now clamped down on with suspensions.

The big issue is the style of play were brute force is leading to games turning into dour slugfests (like the 2nd lions test) that no one wants to watch

[thewobbler]

Rugby isn't "doing more than most". As a sport it continues to bury its head in the sand that the size of the pitch and number of players on it, innately encourages players to bulk up to the point that they're all uncoiled weapons.

[dublin7]

Rugby isn't "doing more than most". As a sport it continues to bury its head in the sand that the size of the pitch and number of players on it, innately encourages players to bulk up to the point that they're all uncoiled weapons.

They are suspending players for high tackles and forcing players to leave the pitch for assessments if they get a head injury or a hit to the head. That's way ahead of football and GAA who don't have any policies in place for head injuries and even if they do they're certainly not enforced. Players being taken off with head injuries or after getting hit on the head are the exception rather than the rule.

Changes do need to be made to the rules to make the game less about physicality and speed up the game

[thewobbler]

You're comparing apples and pears.

There are more head injuries and concussions in a 6N game than a championship season.

It's like expecting judo to have the same protocols as boxing.

[APM]

Rugby isn't "doing more than most". As a sport it continues to bury its head in the sand that the size of the pitch and number of players on it, innately encourages players to bulk up to the point that they're all uncoiled weapons.

They are suspending players for high tackles and forcing players to leave the pitch for assessments if they get a head injury or a hit to the head. That's way ahead of football and GAA who don't have any policies in place for head injuries and even if they do they're certainly not enforced. Players being taken off with head injuries or after getting hit on the head are the exception rather than the rule.

Changes do need to be made to the rules to make the game less about physicality and speed up the game

Absolute nonsense.  Hard to even know where to start with that. 

[dublin7]

Rugby isn't "doing more than most". As a sport it continues to bury its head in the sand that the size of the pitch and number of players on it, innately encourages players to bulk up to the point that they're all uncoiled weapons.

They are suspending players for high tackles and forcing players to leave the pitch for assessments if they get a head injury or a hit to the head. That's way ahead of football and GAA who don't have any policies in place for head injuries and even if they do they're certainly not enforced. Players being taken off with head injuries or after getting hit on the head are the exception rather than the rule.

Changes do need to be made to the rules to make the game less about physicality and speed up the game

Absolute nonsense.  Hard to even know where to start with that.

Clearly you're too intelligent to do so. Fair enough

[6th sam]

Rugby isn't "doing more than most". As a sport it continues to bury its head in the sand that the size of the pitch and number of players on it, innately encourages players to bulk up to the point that they're all uncoiled weapons.

They are suspending players for high tackles and forcing players to leave the pitch for assessments if they get a head injury or a hit to the head. That's way ahead of football and GAA who don't have any policies in place for head injuries and even if they do they're certainly not enforced. Players being taken off with head injuries or after getting hit on the head are the exception rather than the rule.

Changes do need to be made to the rules to make the game less about physicality and speed up the game

That's just not true. Gaa have clear guidelines regarding head injuries which are enforced , where gaa differs from rugby is that statistically there is much less risk of head injury in gaa. Scrums rucks phases direct collision between 20 stone plus professional athletes at speed . It's ironic how coaching looks like it's  reducing the risk of playing errors but increasing the risk of injury. Ethos around schools rugby and participation also is questionable , with the existence of "an old school tie" mentality absent in most other sports . Encouragement of Bulking up for youth players most of whom won't end up playing adult rugby anyway. Having been a rugby fan , I don't see where it's going , and can't watch it anymore

[dublin7]

Rugby isn't "doing more than most". As a sport it continues to bury its head in the sand that the size of the pitch and number of players on it, innately encourages players to bulk up to the point that they're all uncoiled weapons.

They are suspending players for high tackles and forcing players to leave the pitch for assessments if they get a head injury or a hit to the head. That's way ahead of football and GAA who don't have any policies in place for head injuries and even if they do they're certainly not enforced. Players being taken off with head injuries or after getting hit on the head are the exception rather than the rule.

Changes do need to be made to the rules to make the game less about physicality and speed up the game

That's just not true. Gaa have clear guidelines regarding head injuries which are enforced , where gaa differs from rugby is that statistically there is much less risk of head injury in gaa. Scrums rucks phases direct collision between 20 stone plus professional athletes at speed . It's ironic how coaching looks like it's  reducing the risk of playing errors but increasing the risk of injury. Ethos around schools rugby and participation also is questionable , with the existence of "an old school tie" mentality absent in most other sports . Encouragement of Bulking up for youth players most of whom won't end up playing adult rugby anyway. Having been a rugby fan , I don't see where it's going , and can't watch it anymore

They're not enforced at senior level. Maybe they are at underage. It's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt, then they'll be forced to take the issue seriously

[thewobbler]

It's a contact sport played outdoors in all weather conditions.

Therefore it's always only a matter of time until someone gets seriously hurt; whether that be a head injury, a broken back or neck, a ruptured spleen, a heart attack, and so on. It's only a matter of time until someone gets struck by lightning or hit by a hailstone the size of a tennis ball.

But you keep pretending to yourself that a sport that has practically zero head collisions per game needs some protracted laws and sanctions to prevent freak occurrences from happening. It obviously helps you turn a blind eye to the malaise that is swamping rugby, so stick at it.